Skin injury: Associations with variables related to perfusion and pressure

Abstract

Skin injuries are a major healthcare problem that are not well understood or prevented in the critically ill, suggesting that underappreciated variables are contributing. This pilot study tested the hypothesis that perfusion-related factors contribute to skin injuries diagnosed as hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). A total of 533 adult patients were followed over 2574 critical care days (mean age 62.4, standard deviation (SD) 14.3 years, mean body mass index 30.4 (SD 7.4) kg/m², 36.4% female). This was a secondary analysis of prospective, non-randomised clinical data from an intensive care unit at a large urban teaching hospital. Factors related to perfusion, specifically two or more infusions of vasopressors/inotropes, temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and durable MCS, were analysed to determine whether they were more strongly associated with HAPIs than immobility due to prolonged mechanical ventilation (>72 h) or operating room time (>6 h). Patients diagnosed with a HAPI had a statistically significant higher risk of being exposed to variables related to perfusion and immobility (P < 0.05 for each variable). Perfusion-related variables, except durable MCS, had a larger effect on skin breakdown (number needed to harm (NNH) 4–10) than immobility-associated variables (NNH 12–17). The finding that perfusion-related variables predicted HAPIs may warrant consideration of alternative diagnoses, such as skin failure due to impaired perfusion as a pathophysiological process that occurs concurrently with multisystem organ failure. Differentiation of skin injuries primarily from circulatory malfunction, rather than external pressure, may guide the development of more effective treatment and prevention protocols. This pilot study suggests that the contribution of perfusion to skin injuries should be explored further.

Keywords

Critical illness cardiovascular intensive care pressure perfusion skin wound injury

Introduction

Skin breakdown in the critically ill has important implications for patient prognostication, recovery, morbidity, mortality, and family perception of care. The differential diagnosis for skin breakdown is broad, but pressure is a prevalent aetiology and major problem in Australia¹ and the United States² with more than 350,000 and 2.5 million pressure injury cases per year respectively, contributing to over 60,000 deaths in the latter.³ The mortality risk associated with pressure injuries increases with the severity of pressure injury stage.⁴ Pressure injuries are also associated with increased pain scores, rates of infection, and length of stay (LOS).^5,6 Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients are almost four times more likely to develop pressure injuries than their non-ICU acute-care patient counterparts,⁷ with an incidence estimated at 10%–25%.^8
–10

Hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) cases, which are a designated nursing-sensitive quality indicator,¹¹ carry a huge economic toll for critical care health systems and patients. The annual total cost of chronic wounds in Australia was estimated at A$2.85 billion in 2012, which included pressure injury costs of A$1.64 billion.¹ This is comparable with other populations such as the United States where the total cost for HAPI cases was approximately US$10 billion, with a single HAPI incident costing hospitals up to approximately US$70,000, not counting the impact of malpractice.^3,5,12 As such, there have been various quality improvement initiatives and systematic reviews for HAPI prevention.^13
–15 However, despite such initiatives, pressure injuries have persisted, which has shifted the focus to finding significant risk factors and predictive models for injuries.^16,17

Historically, the predictors and aetiologies of pressure injuries focused on sensory perception, moisture, mobility, nutrition, and shear.^18,19 These factors unfortunately have significant heterogeneity and subjectivity alongside poor specificity and predictive value.^18,19 This is probably because other factors make larger contributions to tissue survival, such as perfusion and oxygen delivery.^9,20,21

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the association between perfusion with skin injuries classified as a HAPI. This hypothesis was tested in patients admitted to a cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) by determining the correlation of factors related to perfusion/low flow states, such as infusions of two of more vasopressors/inotropes, temporary mechanical circulatory support (temp MCS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and durable mechanical circulatory support (i.e. left ventricular assist device (LVAD)). These perfusion variables were analysed to determine whether they were more strongly associated with skin injuries versus immobility due to prolonged mechanical ventilation or operating room (OR) time.

Methods

This cohort study was a secondary analysis of de-identified, prospective non-randomised, before and after clinical data. Adult patients were admitted to the CVICU at a large urban teaching hospital between 4 January 2018 and 30 June 2018 for the baseline group, and 16 September 2019 and 15 December 2019 during the quality improvement initiative. The primary study, during which data collection occurred, was a non-randomised, prospectively collected, before and after quality improvement project. The before group was a pressure mapping device study, which measured posterior pressure to identify patients at risk of skin injury, but had no intervention/pressure-relieving features. The after group study implemented an alternating pressure overlay device with the goal of decreasing the incidence, progression or severity of skin injuries due to pressure. The alternating pressure overlay device did not have an effect on skin injury outcomes (unpublished data). Institutional review board (IRB) approval was waived due to the study’s designation as a quality improvement initiative by the IRB/Human Research Protection Programs (PRO31758 and PRO35880 approved on 14 March 2018 and 16 September 2019, respectively). This quality improvement data were de-identified after collection, as recommended by the data analysts and compliance division. All aspects of this study were performed in accordance with institutional ethical standards of the responsible conduct of human research and the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

Data were extracted from the electronic medical record or acquired during daily chart audits for types of pressure-relieving surfaces and/or devices being used. Importantly, all the immobility and perfusion variables tested, as well as the comorbid conditions in the ICU, were present prior to and/or at the time the first skin injury developed. For example, the duration of mechanical ventilation might have been for 4 days or 2 weeks, but in either case there was greater than 72-h period prior to the first skin injury. All standard pressure injury risk assessments, skin assessments, and implementations were conducted in accordance with the hospital’s best practice bundle, including the Braden score, which consists of six subscales (sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, nutrition, friction/shear) and total scores that range from 6 to 23 with lower scores being worse.¹⁹ If a HAPI was suspected, the hospital-approved procedure was followed by the bedside nurse, including documentation, notification, request for a wound, ostomy, continence nurse consult, and Safety Event reporting. Patients with device-related skin injuries were not excluded from this study because no patient had only a device-related skin injury and no other unrelated skin injury.

Comparisons were made for demographics, comorbidities that were present on admission, conditions developed in the ICU, as well as the immobility and perfusion variables to be tested, including mechanical ventilation greater than 72 h (Vent >72 h), cumulative OR time greater than 6 h (OR >6 h), two or more inotropes, temp MCS (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella® Pertcutaneous Assist Device, (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA), or Protek Duo (CardiacAssist Inc, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)), ECMO, and LVAD. Two or more inotropes was selected because prior literature has shown that this variable is associated with skin injuries and might be more specific than a single inotrope.²²

Descriptive statistics are presented as mean with standard deviation (SD), median with range for continuous variables, and counts with percentage for categorical ones. Between-group comparisons were performed using t-tests for continuous variables, Wilcoxon rank sum tests for ordinal measures, and chi-square tests for categorical outcomes; exact versions of the tests were used when the expected counts were under five for at least one cell. Number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated for each of the perfusion and immobility variables as the inverse of the risk difference between patients with and without the risk factor. Confidence intervals are presented using the method of Altman et al.²³

Results

The final study cohort included 533 patients admitted to the CVICU and followed over approximately 2574 critical care days. The patients had a mean age of 62.4 (SD 14.3) years, a mean body mass index of 30.4 (SD 7.4) kg/m², and 36.4% were female (Table 1); these characteristics were similar between the groups that were and were not diagnosed with a new or worsened HAPI. The primary service for these patients was primarily 103 (39.2%) cardiothoracic surgery, 82 (31.2%) cardiology, 35 (13.3%) critical care anaesthesia, and 30 (11.4%) critical care medicine. Comorbidities and characteristics of pressure injuries present on admission were similar between the groups that were and were not diagnosed with a new or worsened HAPI while in the ICU (Table 2). A total of 17 unique patients in this cohort were diagnosed with new or worsened HAPIs while in the ICU (Table 3), which represents a 3.2% incidence per patient admission, or 6.6 patients diagnosed with HAPIs per 1000 critical care days.

Table 1.

Demographics and characteristics. Patients admitted that did or did not develop a new or worsened skin injury diagnosed as a hospital-acquired pressure injury while in the intensive care unit.

		New or worsened HAPI
Variables	TotalN = 533	NoN = 516	YesN = 17	P-value
Age, years				0.339^T
Mean (SD)	62.4 (14.3)	62.5 (14.3)	59.1 (13.1)
Median (min–max)	63.0 (19.0–93.0)	63.0 (19.0–93.0)	63.0 (19.0–93.0)
Sex				0.677^C
Female	194 (36.4)	187 (36.2)	7 (41.2)
Male	339 (63.6)	329 (63.8)	10 (58.8)
BMI (first after admission)				0.458^T
Mean (SD)	30.4 (7.4)	30.4 (7.4)	31.7 (8.8)
Median (min–max)	29.1 (15.4–68.2)	29.1 (15.4–68.2)	30.0 (16.4–50.5)
BMI categorical				0.902^C+
18.4 and less	15 (2.8)	14 (2.7)	1 (5.9)
18.5–24.9	104 (19.5)	101 (19.6)	3 (17.6)
25.0–29.9	168 (31.5)	164 (31.8)	4 (23.5)
30.0–39.9	191 (35.8)	184 (35.7)	7 (41.2)
40.0 and greater	55 (10.3)	53 (10.3)	2 (11.8)
Number of comorbid conditions present				<.001^W
0	466 (87.6)	463 (89.9)	3 (17.6)
1	44 (8.3)	41 (8.0)	3 (17.6)
2+	22 (4.1)	11 (2.1)	11 (64.7)
Sepsis				<.001^C+
Yes	32 (6.0)	20 (3.9)	12 (70.6)
Renal failure¹				<.001^C+
Yes	47 (8.8)	36 (7.0)	11 (64.7)
Liver failure				<.001^C+
Yes	11 (2.1)	7 (1.4)	4 (23.5)
Open abdomen				<.001^C+
Yes	6 (2.2)	3 (1.2)	3 (30.0)
Open chest				<.001^C+
Yes	13 (4.8)	9 (3.5)	4 (40)

Row values are reported as sample size (percent) unless otherwise indicated. Patient critical care conditions were compared using the ^Tt-test, ^W Wilcoxon rank sum test, or ^C chi-square tests as indicated, where ⁺ denotes the exact version of the test.

BMI: body mass index; HAPI: hospital-acquired pressure injury; SD: standard deviation.

New onset continuous renal replacement therapy/haemodialysis during intensive care stay.

Table 2.

Comorbidities present on admission. Patients that did or did not develop a new or worsened skin injury diagnosed as a hospital-acquired pressure injury while in the intensive care unit.

		New or worsened HAPI
Variables	TotalN = 533	NoN = 516	YesN = 17	P-value
Number of Conditions				0.890^W
0	335 (63.0)	324 (62.9)	11 (64.7)
1	160 (30.1)	155 (30.1)	5 (29.4)
2	34 (6.4)	34 (6.6)	0 (0.0)
3+	3 (0.6)	2 (0.4)	1 (5.9)
Pressure injury				0.627^C+
Yes	39 (7.3)	37 (7.2)	2 (11.8)
Diabetes				0.501^C
Yes	165 (31.0)	161 (31.2)	4 (23.5)
Vascular disease				0.620^C+
Yes	36 (6.8)	34 (6.6)	2 (11.8)
Renal failure on HD/PD				1.000^C+
Yes	26 (4.9)	25 (4.8)	1 (5.9)
Liver failure				0.230^C+
Yes	8 (1.5)	7 (1.4)	1 (5.9)
Spinal cord injury				1.000^C+
Yes	4 (0.8)	4 (0.8)	0 (0.0)
Pressure injury: sacrum/gluteal				0.169^C+
Yes	28 (6.3)	26 (6.0)	2 (16.7)
Pressure injury: heel				1.000^C+
Yes	5 (1.1)	5 (1.1)	0 (0.0)
Pressure injury: other				1.000^C+
Yes	2 (0.8)	2 (0.8)	0 (0.0)

Row values are reported as sample size (percent) unless otherwise indicated. Patient comorbidities were compared using the ^W Wilcoxon rank sum test, or ^C chi-square tests as indicated. ⁺ denotes the exact version of the test.

HAPI: hospital-acquired pressure injury; ICU: intensive care unit; HD/PD haemodialysis/peritoneal dialysis.

Table 3.

Perfusion and immobility variables. Patients that did or did not develop a new or worsened skin injury diagnosed as a hospital-acquired pressure injury while in intensive care were compared for clinical interventions that treat poor perfusion or are associated with prolonged immobility.

		New or worsened HAPI
Variables	TotalN = 533	NoN = 516	YesN = 17	P-value
Perfusion variables¹
2+ inotropes¹				<.001^C+
Yes	100 (18.8)	88 (17.1)	12 (70.6)
Temp MCS				<.001^C+
Yes	51 (9.6)	44 (8.5)	7 (41.2)
ECMO				<.001^C+
Yes	31 (5.8)	21 (4.1)	10 (58.8)
LVAD				0.040^C+
Yes	25 (4.7)	22 (4.3)	3 (17.7)
Immobility Variables²
Vent >72 h				<.001^C
Yes	277 (52.0)	260 (50.4)	17 (100.0)
OR >6 h				<.001^C+
Yes	136 (25.5)	123 (23.8)	13 (76.5)

Row values are reported as sample size (percent) unless otherwise indicated. Patient distribution was compared using the ^C chi-square test where ⁺ denotes the exact version of the test.

Perfusion variables: 2+ inotropes, temp MCS, ECMO, LVAD.

Immobility variables: Vent >72 h, OR >6 h.

2+ inotropes: two or more vasopressors or inotropes; temp MCS: temporary mechanical circulatory support; ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; LVAD: left ventricular assist device; Vent >72 h: mechanical ventilation more than 72 h; OR >6 h: total operating room time greater than 6 h; HAPI: hospital-acquired pressure injury.

Critical care conditions were significantly different between the groups that did or did not develop a new or worsened HAPI while in the ICU. Patients with HAPIs had significantly more hours of two or more inotropes, more hours of mechanical ventilation, more comorbid conditions present in the ICU (sepsis, renal failure, liver failure; Table 1), longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay (eTable 1), more hours dependent for mobility, higher number of times repositioned while dependent, lower Braden score on transfer, and greater hours with Braden mobility subscore <3 (eTable 2). Interventions to prevent HAPI were utilised more often in the group that developed injuries (eTable 2).

The distribution of patients that were managed with interventions to treat poor perfusion/low flow states or had clinical care associated with prolonged immobility was significantly different between patients developing a new or worse HAPI (Table 3). All perfusion and immobility variables tested, including two or more inotropes, temp MCS, ECMO, LVAD, Vent >72 h, and total OR >6 h, demonstrated significantly higher prevalence in the patients diagnosed with a new or worsened HAPI while in the ICU compared to those that did not (Table 3). The distribution of patients diagnosed with a new or worsened HAPI compared to those patients that were not, was significantly different in terms of the number that met perfusion or immobility criteria (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Number of perfusion or immobility criteria in patients with and without a HAPI diagnosis. The distribution of patients in the HAPI and no HAPI groups are significantly different based on the number of perfusion or immobility criteria met (P < 0.001) according to the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The number of patients in each group is identified within or immediately adjacent to the representative subcolumn. HAPI: hospital-acquired pressure injury.

Therefore, an NNH analysis for exposure to individual perfusion and immobility criteria was performed, which demonstrated 95% confidence intervals that did not include infinity, except for durable LVAD support (Table 4), consistent with their association to skin injury. The variables associated with perfusion, except LVAD, had a larger effect size on skin breakdown (NNH 4–10) than variables associated with immobility (NNH 12–17). Additionally, there was a significant increase in the risk of developing a skin injury when a patient was exposed to more than three of the perfusion or immobility criteria (Table 5).

Table 4.

Number needed to harm or benefit for exposure to individual criteria to contribute to skin injury.

Comparison variable	NNH	NNH95% confidence intervals
Vent >72 h	16.3	11–30
OR >6 h	11.7	7–28
2+ inotropes	9.2	6–23
Temp MCS	8.6	5–47
ECMO	3.2	2–7
LVAD	10.8	NNH 5 to ∞ to NNB 28

Criteria that may have a greater contribution of immobility are Vent >72 h and OR >6 h, whereas 2+inotropes, temp MCS, ECMO, and LVAD may have a greater contribution of perfusion.

NNH: number needed to harm; NNB: number needed to benefit; Vent >72 h: mechanical ventilation greater than 72 h; OR >6 h: cumulative operating time greater than 6 h; 2+ inotropes: two or more vasopressor/inotrope infusions; temp MCS: temporary mechanical circulatory support; ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; LVAD: left ventricular assist device.

Table 5.

Number needed to harm or benefit for exposure to multiple criteria to contribute to skin injury.

Number of criteria	NNH	NNH95% confidence intervals
1 vs. 0	115.0	NNH 39 to ∞ to NNB 121
2 vs. 0	31.3	NNH 15 to ∞ to NNB 276
3 vs. 0	16.7	NNH 8 to ∞ to NNB 172
4 vs. 0	4.8	3–22
5 vs. 0	2.8	2–9

Experiencing more than three criteria results in a significant increase in risk of developing a skin injury.

NNH: number needed to harm; NNB: number needed to benefit.

Discussion

This data were consistent with the hypothesis that malperfusion due to cardiogenic shock is associated with an increased risk of skin failure, defined here as a pathophysiological process that occurs concurrently with multisystem organ failure due to circulatory malfunction.^24
–27 The presumption being that these criteria reflect a treatment for the underlying pathophysiological process, namely cardiogenic shock, rather than increasing the risk of skin injury themselves. Criteria that may have had a greater perfusion contribution were two or more inotropes, temp MCS, ECMO, and LVAD, whereas mechanical ventilation >72 h and cumulative OR time >6 h may have had a greater contribution of immobility as a surrogate for prolonged exposure to pressure. Based on the NNH analysis, the perfusion-related variables had a larger effect size than variables associated with immobility. The exception to that pattern was the incidence of HAPI in patients with a durable LVAD, which was highly variable. This is probably because the trajectory of patients with a durable LVAD was bimodal, such that some had no complications and thus were protected from skin injury, while others were plagued by coagulopathy, fluid shifts, and right ventricle failure that contributed to prolonged low flow states and decreased perfusion of all organs, including the skin. The NNH analysis also demonstrated that temp MCS and ECMO had a lower NNH (suggesting a larger risk of skin injury) compared to two or more inotropes, which could be interpreted as reflective of disease severity given that inotropes/vasopressors are often first-line agents compared to MCS.

Preventing skin injuries has begun to evolve from pressure-relieving interventions to optimising skin perfusion and oxygenation, which has garnered increased attention and sophistication over the years.²⁸ For example, skin perfusion pressure (SPP), defined as mean arterial pressure (MAP) minus tissue pressure has been studied to determine the SPP threshold for the restoration of microcirculatory or capillary flow that would promote wound healing or avoid skin failure.²⁹ In a study of patients that underwent amputation, SPP ≥30 mmHg predicted complete healing in 90% of cases, while SPP <30 mmHg predicted the failure of healing in 75% of cases.³⁰ In another study of patients with foot ulcers, almost all healed cases had values of SPP >27 mmHg and those that did not heal were mainly associated with severe infections.³¹ It would not be surprising if these thresholds were dependent on patient comorbidities. For example, the SPP threshold for detecting atherothrombosis complications in diabetic haemodialysis patients was found to be 10 mmHg lower than in non-diabetic haemodialysis patients.³² Notably, that study found cut-off points at 53 and 62 mmHg, which is substantially higher than most studies that investigated 30–40 mmHg thresholds for skin healing.²⁹ While SPP values have been shown to be a good predictor of wound healing in patients with limb ischaemia it is unknown the extent to which the SPP threshold in a limb ischaemia patient population can be extrapolated to critically ill patients. For that matter, SPP might not be the ideal endpoint to target to protect the skin given that SPP would be a population-average target. Other non-invasive measures of skin blood flow using laser Doppler or tissue oxygenation are being investigated that could be implemented to individualise care.

The skin is particularly vulnerable during critical illness since decreased systemic perfusion results in adaptive mechanisms to protect visceral organs at the expense of the cutaneous circulation.^24,28 Due to this, skin injuries are associated with multisystem organ failure and mortality, mostly as a marker of illness severity rather than as the cause of death.^4,33
–35 Consistent with that notion, peripheral tissue perfusion is associated with organ failure and death in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.³⁶ While there is extensive literature on the haemodynamic parameters that predict mortality,^37,38 there is limited literature on specific perfusion variables and their thresholds for predicting skin failure or wound healing. Interestingly, the skin has been used as an endpoint to determine resuscitation efficacy based on increases to both skin blood flow and oxygen consumption for patients in shock, the majority of which were septic.^39,40 Notably, skin perfusion is further diminished in the setting of tissue oedema due to fluid overload, which increases the risk of mortality⁴¹ and probably increases the risk of skin injury, similar to oedema in other organs.⁴² Also, it is not yet known whether different aetiologies of multisystem organ failure have unique thresholds for optimising tissue oxygenation to protect against skin injury. It would be reasonable to hypothesise that different diagnoses might have different thresholds because the underlying pathophysiology is distinct. This would be logical, but there are arguments supporting and refuting that hypothesis. Supporting the theory that thresholds will be different is that there are different underlying mechanisms. For example, even within distributive shock states, those induced by elevations in nitric oxide, such as sepsis, burns or pancreatitis, might respond differently than adrenal insufficiency or anaphylaxis as vasodilatory states. Even though all of the above distributive conditions are regularly temporised with similar vasopressors, they respond differently to treatments. For example, nitric oxide–mediated shock states respond well to anti-vasodilators, such as methylene blue and hydroxocobalamin (discussed further below). Also, increasing doses of norepinephrine (noradrenaline) to target higher MAPs can improve cutaneous microvascular flow and tissue oxygenation in sepsis,⁴³ but the same approach may be harmful in cardiogenic shock. Of note, vasopressors/inotropes do not necessarily restore normal flow to the microcirculation^44,45 or autonomic control of specific vascular beds.⁴⁶ Likewise, the limited evidence in humans on whether current pulsatile flow technology improves patient-oriented outcomes primarily comes from cardiopulmonary bypass, which suggests that continuous non-pulsatile flow is mostly non-inferior to pulsatile perfusion, with the exception of marginal improvements on renal and pulmonary outcomes.^47,48 These findings are, of course, in contrast to the durable LVAD literature that demonstrates that non-pulsatile flow is associated with compromised splanchnic blood flow, bowel ischaemia, feeding intolerance, and gastrointestinal bleeds.^49
–51 The literature related to ECMO that supports that pulsatility improves microvascular perfusion due to endothelial/glycocalyx and inflammatory mechanisms is relatively limited to canine studies.^52
–54 However, in support of the alternative hypothesis, that the risk of skin failure is not based on the indication for critical care, there is some data, albeit from a few relatively small studies. First, skin blood flow changes were independent of aetiology when comparing septic to cardiogenic/hypovolaemic shock.^38,55,56 Furthermore, decreased sublingual microvasculature perfusion is associated with organ failure and death in patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest³⁶ and in septic shock.⁵⁷ These similarities between post–cardiac arrest syndrome and septic shock have been proposed to be due to similar autonomic nervous system changes, namely decreased sympathovagal tone.⁵⁸ Again, consistent with skin failure being a marker of disease severity across shock states of multiple aetiologies. Unfortunately, although sublingual measurements are convenient, minimally invasive, and common in temporary MCS studies,⁵⁹ skin perfusion does not correlate with sublingual microvascular flow index measurements, at least in septic patients.⁶⁰ This highlights again that all microvascular beds and shock states are not equivalent, which is especially troublesome for the study of the microcirculation.

Cardiogenic shock states treated with the criteria defined in this study as perfusion variables are, of course, disproportionately present in CVICUs, and that patient population may be at risk of skin injury that is refractory to pressure injury prevention bundle interventions. While the presenting problem in patients treated with MCS devices is often cardiogenic shock, vasoplegia is also a major problem. As such, vasoconstrictors can be a life-saving treatment, but they are associated with risks,⁶¹ including increased rates of HAPI, most likely due to underlying disease severity and diverting blood away from the skin.⁶² The usage of anti-vasodilators, such as methylene blue and hydroxocobalamin, has increased in vasoplegic patients^63
–65 because they are able to reduce dependency on vasopressors while improving overall haemodynamics, microvascular perfusion, haemodynamic coherence, and perfusion pressure.^66
–68 In fact, approximately 50% of patients on ECMO with vasoplegia can be expected to respond to methylene blue with a 10% increase in MAP,⁶⁹ and hydroxocobalamin can treat refractory vasoplegia after cardiopulmonary bypass.^70
–72 However, hydroxocobalamin has also been reported to interfere with multiple laboratory tests.⁷³ Sepsis is the most common cause of distributive shock in an ICU setting, but this study could not control for sepsis as a covariate because two or more inotropes could be reflective of treatment of distributive shock and so would have resulted in duplication of a similar variable in the analysis. As such, this data cannot be used to speculate about the relative risk of skin injury due to cardiogenic shock compared to distributive shock.⁴⁴ Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that nitric oxide pathways are disturbed in critically ill patients due to underlying pathophysiology and current care, which can contribute to microvascular vasoconstriction.^74,75 As such, anti-vasodilators are promising treatments that may decrease the risk of skin injuries for CVICU patients, but larger randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm this.

There are several other limitations of this study given that it represents prospectively collected data from patients admitted to a single ICU that was retrospectively analysed to understand the effects of HAPI in this facility. Ideally, this study would have had a derivation and validation cohort, but this was not feasible given the rarity of skin injuries. Another limitation is the risk of confounding due to unmeasured variables, particularly due to allocation bias (i.e. the group of patients with cardiogenic shock that developed a new or worsened HAPI had a common cause besides the tested criteria that was linked to perfusion deficits or immobility). As such, the associations found here cannot prove causation. This study did not include LOS as a covariate in the model because both LOS and HAPI are outcomes that mutually affect each other. Also, a proper analysis to statistically control for LOS would require data on the timing of HAPI development, which was not available in the dataset. Of note, the analysis considered the incidence of each criterion separately, but most of the patients either met none of the criteria (Figure 1; n = 235) or met two or more criteria (n = 182) with 115 patients (22%) meeting a single criterion. Of the group meeting only a single perfusion or immobility criterion, one patient was diagnosed with a HAPI. Thus, the effect of having exactly one criterion had an NNH of 115, which was a weaker effect than any of the criteria by themselves (NNH 17 or lower), since many of those patients met two or more criteria. The NNH analysis should be interpreted with caution, in the setting of a univariate analysis, because there are confounds that are not accounted for and therefore should be taken as a quantification of the effect size and confidence intervals of a single variable. A multivariable analysis was not feasible due to the rare incidence of HAPI (n = 17) and the comparison with six perfusion/immobility criteria. The lack of a multivariate analysis greatly limits the confidence in these findings, which need to be replicated in well-designed studies. Although the care in this ICU was standardised based on bundles and protocols, the findings might not be generalisable to other ICU patient populations, even those that are predominantly treated with MCS. Several of these limitations are common for investigations into skin injuries due to the rarity of these events and heterogeneity between patients. Attempts were made to control for these by limiting the case to a single ICU that primarily treats patients with cardiogenic shock.

While the data presented here were consistent with our hypothesis, the findings from this pilot study should be considered preliminary due to the above limitations. This investigation might be useful as a guide for well-designed, appropriately powered trials that can implement multivariate models to test the contribution of perfusion to skin failure. The DecubICUs study did not find an association between vasopressor use and skin injuries,⁴ but such a large-scale epidemiological study is not optimal for a targeted scientific question. Furthermore, the DecubICUs study tested for any vasopressor use rather than two or more vasopressors as done in this study, which might be more specific for predicting skin injuries.

The incidence of skin injuries is likely to continue to increase given that advancements in critical care are allowing for the survival of an ageing population with a higher severity of critical illness.⁷⁶ The findings presented here suggest that cardiogenic shock variables may have a greater correlation with skin injuries compared to immobility or skin pressure variables. As such, skin failure is likely to be underdiagnosed, but notably the definition still needs consensus from interprofessional and multidisciplinary stakeholders.^24
–27 Further studies are necessary to refine the variables tested to control for disease severity to determine which clinical variables are most amenable to interventions to optimise skin perfusion. Studies should also test whether cardiogenic shock or distributive shock variables increase the risk of skin failure to a greater degree. Investigations into the pathophysiological conditions that contribute to skin failure in critically ill patients are essential so that personalised physiological endpoints can be targeted with individualised treatments.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-aic-10.1177_0310057X241264575 - Supplemental material for Skin injury: Associations with variables related to perfusion and pressure

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-aic-10.1177_0310057X241264575 for Skin injury: Associations with variables related to perfusion and pressure by Christopher J Roberts, Jennifer A Popies, Abrahim N Razzak, Xi Fang, Octavio A Falcucci and Paul J Pearson and Aniko Szabo in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

Footnotes

Author contribution(s)

Christopher J Roberts: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Jennifer A Popies: Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Project administration; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Abrahim N Razzak: Project administration; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Xi Fang: Formal analysis; Methodology; Software; Writing – review & editing.

Octavio A Falcucci: Conceptualization; Methodology; Project administration; Writing – review & editing.

Paul J Pearson: Conceptualization; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Supervision; Writing – review & editing.

Aniko Szabo: Formal analysis; Methodology; Software; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the entire interprofessional and multidisciplinary team that serves patients and their families in the CVICU for tirelessly striving to deliver exceptional care and for their support of the data collection used in this project as well as in clinically piloting the algorithm developed as a result.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Service Career Development (award no. IK2 BX005600 (CJR)) and by the Medical College of Wisconsin Departments of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery.

ORCID iD

Christopher J Roberts

References

Graves

Zheng

Modelling the direct health care costs of chronic wounds in Australia. Wound Pract Res 2014; 22: 20.

Stewart

Black

Alderden

, et al. The past, present, and future of deep-tissue (pressure) injury. Adv Skin Wound Care 2022; 35: 78–80. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000803592.21401.8f

Padula

Pronovost

PJ.

Addressing the multisectoral impact of pressure injuries in the USA, UK and abroad. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 27: 171–173. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007021

Labeau

Afonso

Benbenishty

, et al. Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 160–169. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9

Bennett

O’Sullivan

DeVito

, et al. The increasing medical malpractice risk related to pressure ulcers in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 73–81. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03033.x

Kottner

Cuddigan

Carville

, et al. Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: the protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019. J Tissue Viability 2019; 28: 51–58. doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2019.01.001

Coyer

Miles

Gosley

, et al. Pressure injury prevalence in intensive care versus non-intensive care patients: a state-wide comparison. Aust Crit Care 2017; 30: 244–250. doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2016.12.003

Chaboyer

Thalib

Harbeck

, et al. Incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2018; 46: e1074–e1081. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003366

Manzano

Navarro

Roldán

, et al. Pressure ulcer incidence and risk factors in ventilated intensive care patients. J Crit Care 2010; 25(3):469–476. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.09.002

10.

Badia

Trujillano

Serviá

, et al. Skin lesions after intensive care procedures: results of a prospective study. J Crit Care 2008; 23: 525–531. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2008.03.001

11.

Gallagher

Rowell

PA.

Claiming the future of nursing through nursing-sensitive quality indicators. Nurs Adm Q 2003; 27: 273–284. doi:10.1097/00006216-200310000-00004

12.

Padula

Mishra

Makic

, et al. Improving the quality of pressure ulcer care with prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 2011; 49: 385–392. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31820292b3

13.

Barakat-Johnson

Lai

Stephenson

, et al. Efficacy of a heel offloading boot in reducing heel pressure injuries in patients in Australian intensive care units: a single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2022; 70: 103205. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103205

14.

Frank

Walsh

Wooton

, et al. Impact of a pressure injury prevention bundle in the solutions for patient safety network. Pediatr Qual Saf 2017; 2: e013. doi:10.1097/pq9.0000000000000013

15.

Reddy

Gill

Rochon

PA.

Preventing pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296: 974–984. doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.974

16.

Alderden

Rondinelli

Pepper

, et al. Risk factors for pressure injuries among critical care patients: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2017; 71:97–114. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.03.012

17.

Tschannen

Anderson

The pressure injury predictive model: a framework for hospital-acquired pressure injuries. J Clin Nurs 2020; 29: 1398–1421. doi:10.1111/jocn.15171

18.

Delawder

Leontie

Maduro

, et al. Predictive validity of the Cubbin-Jackson and Braden skin risk tools in critical care patients: a multisite project. Am J Crit Care 2021; 30: 140–144. doi:10.4037/ajcc2021669

19.

Huang

Wang

, et al. Predictive validity of the Braden scale for pressure injury risk assessment in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Open 2021; 8: 2194–2207. doi:10.1002/nop2.792

20.

Ahtiala

Soppi

Kivimaki

Critical evaluation of the Jackson/Cubbin Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale – a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study population of intensive care patients. Ostomy Wound Manage 2016; 62: 24–33.

21.

Sala

Mayampurath

Solmos

, et al. Predictors of pressure injury development in critically ill adults: a retrospective cohort study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2021; 62: 102924. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102924

22.

Bly

Schallom

Sona

, et al. A model of pressure, oxygenation, and perfusion risk factors for pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care 2016; 25: 156–164. doi:10.4037/ajcc2016840

23.

Altman

DG.

Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ 1998; 317: 1309–1312. doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1309

24.

Mileski

McClay

Natividad

Facilitating factors in the proper identification of acute skin failure: a systematic review. Crit Care Nurse 2021; 41: 36–42. doi:10.4037/ccn2021145

25.

Langemo

Parish

LC.

The past, present, and future of skin failure. Adv Skin Wound Care 2022; 35: 81–83. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000803596.89726.6e

26.

Langemo

Brown

Skin fails too: acute, chronic, and end-stage skin failure. Adv Skin Wound Care 2006; 19: 206–211. doi:10.1097/00129334-200605000-00014

27.

Levine

Delmore

Cox

Skin failure: concept review and proposed model. Adv Skin Wound Care 2022; 35: 139–148. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000818572.31307.7b

28.

Williams

Harding

Healing responses of skin and muscle in critical illness. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: S547–S557. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000081430.34066.1D

29.

Pan

Chen

, et al. Skin perfusion pressure as a predictor of ischemic wound healing potential. Biomed Rep 2018; 8: 330–334. doi:10.3892/br.2018.1064

30.

Adera

James

Castronuovo

Jr. , et al. Prediction of amputation wound healing with skin perfusion pressure. J Vasc Surg 1995; 21: 823–828. doi:10.1016/s0741-5214(05)80014-x

31.

Kawai

Mihara

Takahagi

, et al. Evaluation of skin perfusion pressure to assess refractory foot ulcers. J Wound Care 2017; 26: 267–270. doi:10.12968/jowc.2017.26.5.267

32.

Hiratsuka

Koyama

Yamamoto

, et al. Skin perfusion pressure and the prevalence of atherothrombosis in hemodialysis patients. Ther Apher Dial 2016; 20: 40–45. doi:10.1111/1744-9987.12327

33.

Berlowitz

Wilking

SV.

The short-term outcome of pressure sores. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990; 38: 748–752. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1990.tb01464.x

34.

Brown

Long-term outcomes of full-thickness pressure ulcers: healing and mortality. Ostomy Wound Manage 2003; 49: 42–50.

35.

Thomas

Goode

Tarquine

, et al. Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and risk of death. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44: 1435–1440. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb04067.x

36.

van Genderen

Lima

Akkerhuis

, et al. Persistent peripheral and microcirculatory perfusion alterations after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are associated with poor survival. Crit Care Med 2012; 40: 2287–2294. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31825333b2

37.

Forrester

Diamond

Swan

HJ.

Correlative classification of clinical and hemodynamic function after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1977; 39: 137–145. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(77)80182-3

38.

Mongkolpun

Orbegozo

Cordeiro

CPR

, et al. Alterations in skin blood flow at the fingertip are related to mortality in patients with circulatory shock. Crit Care Med 2020; 48: 443–450. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004177

39.

Mongkolpun

Gardette

Cortés

, et al. The utility of skin blood flow to identify the effects of fluids on oxygen consumption in shock. J Crit Care 2017; 42: 397. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.09.084

40.

Mongkolpun

Gardette

Orbegozo

, et al. An increase in skin blood flow induced by fluid challenge is associated with an increase in oxygen consumption in patients with circulatory shock. J Crit Care 2022; 69: 153984. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.01.001

41.

Messmer

Zingg

Müller

, et al. Fluid overload and mortality in adult critical care patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Crit Care Med 2020; 48: 1862–1870. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004617

42.

Dekker

NAM

van Leeuwen

ALI

van de Ven

, et al. Pharmacological interventions to reduce edema following cardiopulmonary bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care 2020; 56: 63–72. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.12.006

43.

Jhanji

Stirling

Patel

, et al. The effect of increasing doses of norepinephrine on tissue oxygenation and microvascular flow in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 1961–1966. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a00a1c

44.

Bateman

Walley

KR.

Microvascular resuscitation as a therapeutic goal in severe sepsis. Crit Care 2005; 9: S27–S32. doi:10.1186/cc3756

45.

Legrand

De Backer

Dépret

, et al. Recruiting the microcirculation in septic shock. Ann Intensive Care 2019; 9: 102. doi:10.1186/s13613-019-0577-9

46.

Dean

Seagard

Hopp

, et al. Differential control of sympathetic activity to kidney and skeletal muscle by ventral medullary neurons. J Auton Nerv Syst 1992; 37: 1–10. doi:10.1016/0165-1838(92)90139-8

47.

Hoefeijzers

ter Horst

Koning

, et al. The pulsatile perfusion debate in cardiac surgery: answers from the microcirculation? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2015; 29: 761–767. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2014.07.025

48.

Tan

Newey

Falter

Pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass: a literature review. J Extra Corpor Technol 2022; 54: 50–60. doi:10.1051/ject/202254050

49.

Leebeek

FWG

Muslem

Bleeding in critical care associated with left ventricular assist devices: pathophysiology, symptoms, and management. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2019; 2019: 88–96. doi:10.1182/hematology.2019000067

50.

van der Merwe

Paul

Rosenfeldt

FL.

Early gastrointestinal complications from ventricular assist devices is increased by non-pulsatile flow. Heart Lung Circ 2020; 29: 295–300. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2019.01.009

51.

Vedachalam

Balasubramanian

Haas

, et al. Treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in left ventricular assist devices: a comprehensive review. World J Gastroenterol 2020; 26: 2550–2558. doi:10.3748/wjg.v26.i20.2550

52.

Zeng

Liu

, et al. The pulsatile modification improves hemodynamics and attenuates inflammatory responses in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Inflamm Res 2021; 14: 1357–1364. doi:10.2147/JIR.S292543

53.

Zhu

Zeng

, et al. Arterial pulsatility augments microcirculatory perfusion and maintains the endothelial integrity during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation via hsa_circ_0007367 upregulation in a canine model with cardiac arrest. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2022; 2022: 1630918. doi:10.1155/2022/1630918

54.

Zhang

Zeng

, et al. Pulsatility protects the endothelial glycocalyx during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Microcirculation 2021; 28: e12722. doi:10.1111/micc.12722

55.

Orbegozo

Mongkolpun

Stringari

, et al. Skin microcirculatory reactivity assessed using a thermal challenge is decreased in patients with circulatory shock and associated with outcome. Ann Intensive Care 2018; 8: 60. doi:10.1186/s13613-018-0393-7

56.

Mongkolpun

Bakos

Vincent

, et al. Monitoring skin blood flow to rapidly identify alterations in tissue perfusion during fluid removal using continuous veno-venous hemofiltration in patients with circulatory shock. Ann Intensive Care 2021; 11: 59. doi:10.1186/s13613-021-00847-z

57.

Sakr

Dubois

De Backer

, et al. Persistent microcirculatory alterations are associated with organ failure and death in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 1825–1831. doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000138558.16257.3f

58.

Chen

Shen

Huang

, et al. Postresuscitation autonomic nervous modulation after cardiac arrest resembles that of severe sepsis. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30: 143–150. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2010.11.013

59.

Putowski

Pluta

Rachfalska

, et al. Sublingual microcirculation in temporary mechanical circulatory support: a current state of knowledge. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2023; 37: 2065–2072. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2023.05.028

60.

Boerma

Kuiper

Kingma

, et al. Disparity between skin perfusion and sublingual microcirculatory alterations in severe sepsis and septic shock: a prospective observational study. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34: 1294–1298. doi:10.1007/s00134-008-1007-x

61.

Loubani

Green

RS.

A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters. J Crit Care 2015; 30: 653.e659–653.e617. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.01.014

62.

McEvoy

Patton

Avsar

, et al. Effects of vasopressor agents on the development of pressure ulcers in critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Wound Care 2022; 31: 266–277. doi:10.12968/jowc.2022.31.3.266

63.

Levy

Fritz

Tahon

, et al. Vasoplegia treatments: the past, the present, and the future. Crit Care 2018; 22: 52. doi:10.1186/s13054-018-1967-3

64.

Pasin

Umbrello

Greco

, et al. Methylene blue as a vasopressor: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Crit Care Resusc 2013; 15: 42–48.

65.

Shapeton

Mahmood

Ortoleva

JP.

Hydroxocobalamin for the treatment of vasoplegia: a review of current literature and considerations for use. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2019; 33: 894–901. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2018.08.017

66.

Maurin

Portran

Schweizer

, et al. Effects of methylene blue on microcirculatory alterations following cardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2022; 39: 333–341. doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000001611

67.

Secilmis

Ozu

Kiroglu

, et al. The production of vasoconstriction-induced residual NO modulates perfusion pressure in rat mesenteric vascular bed. Perfusion 2014; 29: 488–495. doi:10.1177/0267659114524263

68.

Tchen

Sullivan

JB.

Clinical utility of midodrine and methylene blue as catecholamine-sparing agents in intensive care unit patients with shock. J Crit Care 2020; 57: 148–156. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.02.011

69.

Ortoleva

Roberts

Devine

, et al. Methylene blue for vasoplegia during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2021; 35: 2694–2699. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2020.12.042

70.

Furnish

Mueller

Kiser

, et al. Hydroxocobalamin versus methylene blue for vasoplegic syndrome in cardiothoracic surgery: a retrospective cohort. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2020; 34: 1763–1770. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2020.01.033

71.

Peyko

Finamore

Use of intravenous hydroxocobalamin without methylene blue for refractory vasoplegic syndrome after cardiopulmonary bypass. Am J Case Rep 2021; 22: e930890. doi:10.12659/AJCR.930890

72.

Vollmer

Wieruszewski

Martin

, et al. Predicting the response of hydroxocobalamin in postoperative vasoplegia in recipients of cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2022; 36: 2908–2916. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2022.01.021

73.

Cagle

Greene

RA.

Hydroxocobalamin Interference With Chromogenic Anti-Xa Assay in a Patient on Mechanical Circulatory Support. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2023; 37: 1241–1244. doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2023.02.035

74.

Blot

Antiseptic mouthwash, the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway, and hospital mortality: a hypothesis generating review. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 28–38. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06276-z

75.

Blot

Labeau

Dale

CM.

Why it’s time to abandon antiseptic mouthwashes. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2022; 70:103196. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103196

76.

Eachempati

Hydo

Barie

PS.

Factors influencing the development of decubitus ulcers in critically ill surgical patients. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 1678–1682. doi:10.1097/00003246-200109000-00004

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB